Insights
“The civil appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court challenged the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in a case pertaining to the Customs Act, 1962.” In a recent judgment concerning proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962, the Supreme Court has once again underscored a foundational principle governing the writ jurisdiction of High Courts: when a statutory alternative remedy exists particularly when it lies before another High Court’s jurisdiction the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not ordinarily be invoked.
In a milestone moment for India’s judiciary, Justice Surya Kant was sworn in as the 53rd Chief Justice of India (CJI) at aswearing-in ceremony held at the Rashtrapati Bhavan on Monday 24th November, 2025. President Droupadi Murmu administered the oath, which Justice Kant took in Hindi. His tenure will extend up to February 9, 2027, marking nearly 15 months in office. The ceremony witnessed the presence of several distinguished leaders including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister Amit Shah, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, Vice President CP Radhakrishnan, former CJI BR Gavai, former President Ram Nath Kovind, and other Union Ministers like Hardeep Singh Puri, HD Kumaraswamy, JP Nadda, and Piyush Goyal.
In a significant ruling that reinforces the sanctity of criminal procedure and the distinction between bail jurisdiction and habeas corpus jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has categorically held that an accused in judicial custody pursuant to valid orders of a competent court cannot seek release through a writ of habeas corpus. Setting aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had released an accused via habeas corpus, the Supreme Court criticised the approach as an “exercise unknown to law” and one that “shocks the conscience of this Court.”
MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION V. UNION OF INDIA “The Court observed that the Act re-enacted provisions earlier struck down in a new label.” Introduction In a judgment of far-reaching constitutional importance delivered on 19 November 2024, the Supreme Court of India struck down core provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, ruling that the legislation violated the foundational constitutional principles of separation of powers and judicial independence. The decision came from a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, which repeatedly expressed displeasure at the Union Government’s persistent deviation from judicial directions regarding tribunal appointments and service conditions. The Court observed that Parliament had chosen to reenact, under a new statutory label, the very provisions that had earlier been declared unconstitutional in a series of judgments, especially the Madras Bar Association (MBA) cases. The Court held that such reenactment amounted to an impermissible “legislative override,” undermining the doctrine of constitutional supremacy.
“Supreme Court Appoints Justice Nageswara Rao as Mediator” The trademark conflict between Officer’s Choice and Original Choice is one of the most significant and long-running disputes in India’s alcoholic beverage sector. Spanning over three decades, the litigation explores complex aspects of trademark law, including deceptive similarity, rectification, concurrent use, dominant feature analysis, and the anti-dissection rule. The Madras High Court’s final judgment offers a comprehensive framework for analysing composite marks, label similarities, and consumer perceptionparticularly in industries where brand recall heavily drives consumer choice.
PREETHA KRISHNAN & ORS. VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. (2025 INSC 1293) The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment that restores uniformity and certainty to motor accident compensation calculations, decisively rejecting the controversial.
Mere pendency of appeal does not excuse non-payment of rent: Supreme Court confirms Willful Default. In a case revolving around the question of willful default in payment of rent, the bench of Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, JJ has held that mere pendency of appeal does not excuse non-payment of rent and that such conduct amounted to willful default.
This update addresses whether a company whose intellectual property rights have been infringed may file an appeal against an acquittal, even if it was not the informant in the criminal case. Relevant Legal Provisions • Indian Penal Code (IPC): Sections 420 (Cheating) and 120B (Criminal Conspiracy). • Copyright Act, 1957: Sections 63 (Criminal Infringement) and 65 (Possession of Infringing Copies). • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 372 (Right of Victim to Appeal); Section 2(wa) (Definition of Victim).
